re: #512 Renaissance_Man

re: #512 Renaissance_Man

You can assert that, but the history of legislation in this country says otherwise.

Legislative history does not equal moral authority. The ability of the government to violate the rights of individuals is not an argument that supports your position.

It it’s wrong for an individual to do it, it’s wrong for governments to.

Indeed, we’ve decided that to do so violates the rights of the denied individual. And since you feel that’s the only role of government, one would think you’d be for it.

So in other words rights are arbitrary, meaningless and subject to the whims of the majority. I reject this view and any logical person should also.

It’s interesting, almost cute, that you consider public utilities and services to be ‘forced’ on the public without their consent. One might argue that the willingness of the public to elect government that provides these services implies consent.

May I suggest Lysander Spooner as a reading assignment on this topic. The will of the majority does not imply consent and to suggest that it does ignores the basic principles of individual rights and free action.

And it’s a shame that you consider the rights of the individual to be somehow paramount over the rights of other individuals. I would ask by what criteria you want to pick the individuals who have rights over other individuals’ rights, but I don’t think I want to know.

No I consider the rights of all individuals equal as only individual rights exist.

Please explain how choosing not to do business with someone for any reason violates their rights?

After all the items in a business are my property to do with until I choose to transact with another person.